DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 476 244 FL 801 578

AUTHOR Rodriguez, Gregory TITLE From Newcomers to New Americans: The Successful Integration of Immigrants into American Society. ISBN ISBN-0-9645220-2-0 PUB DATE 1999-07-00 NOTE 29p.; Published by the National Integration Forum. AVAILABLE FROM National Immigration Forum, 220 I Street, N.E., Suite 220, Washington, DC 20002-4362 ($10). Tel: 202-544-0004; Fax: 202- 544 -1905; Web; site: http://www.immigrationforum.org. PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Acculturation; Asian Americans; Blacks; English (Second Language); Hispanic Americans; *Homeowners; *Immigrants; *Intermarriage; Limited English Speaking; *Second Language Learning

ABSTRACT This study focuses on three areas considered indexes ofan immigrant's commitment to U.S. society: citizenship, homeownership, English language acquisition, and intermarriage. Data come from the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample and the June 1994 and the 1998 Current Population Survey. Data analysis indicates that in 1990, 76.4 percent of immigrants who had resided in the United States for 40 years were naturalized citizens. Within 20 years of arrival, 60.9 percent of immigrants lived inowner- occupied housing in 1990. Within 10 years of arriving in the United States, more than three out of four immigrants spoke English well or very well in 1990. Less than 2 percent of long-established immigrantsover age 39 years spoke no English at all. Intermarriage rates for second- and third-generation Asians and Latinos were extraordinarily high. Fully one-third of third- generation Hispanic American women, and 41 percent of third-generation Asian American women, were married outside of their ethnic group. The results suggest that, according to data on people's everyday lives, today's immigrants assimilate into U.S. society much the way earlierwaves of newcomers did.(Adjunct ERIC clearinghouse for ESL literacy education.)(SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. OF EDUCATION U.S. DEPARTMENT and Improvement AND Office of Educational Research PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS E CATIONAL RESOURCES CENTER (ERIC) BEE ANTED BY reproduced as This document has been received from the person ororganization originating it. Minor changes have beenmade to ,ct improve reproductionquality.

stated in this RESOURCES Points of view or opinions TO THE EDUCATIONAL document do not necessarilyrepresent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) official OERI position orpolicy 1

From Newcomers to NewAmericans: The Successful IntegrationBEST COPY AVAIL of Immigrants into American Society

Publishedby the National Immigration Forum Authored by Gregory Rodriguez Author: Gregory Rodriguez Research Assistants: Helen Franks and Rob Paral Editors: Maurice Belanger and Selena Leary Editorial Assistants: Judy Mark, Handel Mlilo, and Lisa Shuger Hublitz Project Manager: Angela Kelley Production Manager: Laura Garcia-Culler Production Assistants: Handel Mlilo and Charity Self Art Direction: Lazarus Design Executive Director: Frank Sharry

Gregory Rodriguez is a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., and a research scholar at the Pepperdine Institute for Public Policy in Los Angeles. A contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times Opinion section, Rodriguez also contributes to the Washington Post, The Nation, and The New Republic.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their valuable assistance in the preparation of this report: Vince Ibarra, Joel Kotkin, Aizita Magaiia and Gillian Stevens.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher, except for the inclusion of brief quotations. July 1999 Copyright © by National Immigration Forum Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-9645220-2-0 3 Executive Summary BACKGROUND Anyone subjected to the intellectual debates on immigration of the past twenty years might easily conclude that immigrant assimilation is a thing of the past. At one extreme, right- wing nativists fear a collapse of the nation's common culture, asserting that today's immigrants are unwilling to become part and parcel of the nation's social fabric. At the other end of the spectrum, left-wing academic multiculturalists argue that today's immigrants should not be expected to assimilate into the culture they Assimilation is not about immigrants reject- themselves have absorbed. ing their past, but about people of different

Fortunately, most immigrants do not conduct racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds their lives according to the trends of café society. Contemporary immigrant families overwhelm- coming to believe that they are part of an ingly do what newcomers have always done: overarching American family. slowly, often painfully, but quite assuredly, embrace the cultural norms that are part of life in the United States.

Assimilation into life in the U.S. has never required the obliteration of ethnic identity. Instead, it involves newcomers of differing backgrounds adopting basic concepts of American lifeequality under the law, due process, and economic opportunity. Put another way, assimilation is not about immigrants rejecting their past, but about people of different racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds coming to believe that they are part of an overarching American family.

Assimilation is not now, and has never been, an instant transformation in which an immigrant suddenly becomes a "full-fledged American." Rather, it is a long-term, sometimes multigenera- tional, process. To some extent, it is never-ending: almost all Americans carry some of their ethnic past with them. Furthermore, U.S. culture constantly changes and adapts to immigrants, just as immigrants adapt to it. The nation remains, in the words of sociologist Nathan Glazer, "the permanently unfinished country."

4 From Newcomers to New Americans M E T H O D O L O G y This study focuses on four areas that we consider indices of an immigrant's commitment to American societycitizenship, homeownership, English language acquisition, and intermarriage. In assessing these four quantifiable indices of assimilation, we have chosen to rely on the 1990 U.S. census. Although conducted John yim nine years ago, the decennial census is still the most reliable Huntsville, Alabama source of data on these indices. It is based on a large sample,

John Yim came to the U.S. in 1977 which allows us to extract data on individual immigrant groups from Hong Kong. He enlisted in the with great confidence. For intermarriage data, we also use the June U.S. Army from 1993 to 1995 and 1994 Current Population Survey, which tracks generational differ- describes the years he served with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) ences. For the most recent totals of the numbers of immigrants as the "cradle" of his U.S. citizenship. and where they reside in the United States, we rely exclusively on He proudly became a U.S. citizen in 1994. the 1998 Current Population Survey.

Yim takes his citizenship seriously. He says that his credo is "dedication to OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS work, loyalty to my adopted country, respect for our American flag and what it CITIZENSHIP stands for: democracy and freedom." In 1990, more than three-quarters (76.4%) of immigrants who had resided in the U.S. for forty years were naturalized citizens.

Citizenship is the most symbolic sign of attachment to the United States. Whereas immigration itself can be reactivea response to pressures in the home countrybecoming a citizen is quintessentially proactive. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that naturalized citizens tend to have a positive outlook on the United States. Once naturalized, immigrants also take on a more active role in the civic life of the country.

The longer immigrants reside in the United States, the more likely they are to become U.S. Whereas immigration itself can be citizens. While rates vary among different reactivea response to pressures in the groups, in 1990 three-quarters (76.4%) of immi- grants who had resided in the U.S. for forty years home countrybecoming a citizen is were naturalized. In the past few years, political quintessentially proactive. conditions in the United States have effected a change in attitudes toward naturalization. The anti-immigrant campaigns in California and in Congress in the middle and late 1990s have been partly responsible for the largest rush to naturalization in the history of the United States.

2 From Newcomers to New Americans HOMEOWNERSHIP Within twenty years of arrival in the U.S., well over half (60.9%) of immigrants lived in owner-occupied housing in 1990.

Homeownership is perhaps the most visible and durable sign that immigrants have set down roots in the United States. For most Hasu Shah Americansboth native- and foreign-bornbuying a house is the Camp Hill, Pennsylvania principal means of accumulating wealth. There is no greater

Hasu Shah emigrated from India in symbol of stability, permanence, and faith in the future. 1964 to go to school at Tennessee Technical University. After graduation he became an engineer for the state of Immigrants are making significant strides toward homeownership. Pennsylvania for 18 years. In 1984 he Within twenty years of arrival in the U.S., six out of ten immigrants decided to go into business for himself. lived in owner-occupied housing in 1990. In thirteen of the fifteen With his entire life savings he bought a small 11-room motel. He has since most populous immigrant groups, two out of three households turned this small motel into a real were owner-occupied after twenty-six estate conglomerate which owns 10 hotels, 3 elderly living facilities and years of residence in the U.S. various apartment complexes employing almost 500 Americans. Shah, now President of Hersha ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Enterprises, Ltd., remarks, "Not only do Within tenyears of arriving in the I own a home for my family, I am providing homes and shelter for many more who U.S., more than three out of four need it." immigrants spoke English well or very well in 1990. Less than 2% of Tatyana Arbit long-established forty-year-plus Milwaukee, Wisconsin immigrants spoke no English at all. Tatyana Arbit came as a refugee to the U.S. from Russia in 1989 speaking Immigrants are much better prepared in English than is commonly no English. rIkvo months later she thought. In 1990, a majority (58.2%) of immigrants who had arrived enrolled in English as a Second Language skill classes and her life in the previous five years reported that they already spoke English began to change. "Movie theaters, a job, "well" or "very well." Within ten years of arrival, a little more than simple conversation with a food store clerk, and even new American friends three-quarters (76.3%) of immigrants spoke English with high became possible," says Arbit. proficiency. Only 1.7% of long-established immigrants reported Not content to just learn the language speaking no English at all in 1990. for herself, she also taught English to Russian children in three Milwaukee Taking a look at the second and third generations, virtually all public schools and now works helping resettle refugees. "I want to help new- children of immigrants spoke English proficiently. In most cases, comers find their ticket to success. the native language of immigrants is completely lost after a few Acquiring English skills will set the tone for the rest of their lives," Arbit says. generations in the United States. In 1990, 98.3% of Asian-American children reported speaking English "well," "very well," or exclu- sively, and 95.7% of third generation Latino children spoke English

6 From Newcomers to New Americans 3 "well," "very well," or exclusively. The idea of non-English speaking clusters remaining over generations is simply untrue. Sociologists have even designated the U.S. a "language graveyard."

ONTERMARRIAGE Intermarriagerates for second- and third-generation Asians and

Muzaffar A. Chishti and Latinos are extraordinarily high. Helene Lauffer New York, New York Intermarriage is not only a sign that a person has transcended the Muzaffar Chishti emigrated from ethnic segregationboth coerced and self-imposedof the first Kashmir, India in 1973. A lawyer by years of immigration, it is also the most potent example of how profession, Chishti married Helene Lauffer, a native New Yorker and a Americans forge a common national experience out of a diverse highly regarded social service profes- cultural past. Intermarried couples and their children are living sional. They come from different faiths; he is Muslim and she is Jewish. testaments to the fundamental tolerance underpinning a multi- They married in 1994 and have a ethnic society. Clearly, intermarriage illustrates the extent to young daughter. "In our marriage of which ethnicity no longer serves to separate one American from two very different backgrounds, we celebrate America's diversity, and our another. daughter, Maryam, will help define a new blended American identity," Chishti says. Both foreign-born Asians and foreign-born Hispanics have higher rates of intermarriage than do U.S.-born whites and blacks. By the third generation, intermarriage rates for Asians and Latinos, the two largest ethnic groups among contemporary immigrants, are extremely high. Fully one-third of third-generation Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41% of third-generation Asian American women have non-Asian spouses.

CONCLUSION All available evidence shows that today's immigrants assimilate into U.S. society much the way earlier waves of newcomers did. The proof exists not in the rhetoric of the heated battles over immigration, but in the data revealing the often overlooked, everyday lives of contemporary immigrants and their families.

7

4 From Newcomers to New Americans eflections on AssimiRation

he United States of America at the end of the second millennium is i perhaps the most culturally influential nation in history. Its language has long since become the lingua franca of business and diplomacy. Its popular culturemovies and music, in particularpermeates even the most remote and isolated points on earth. Children in an Andean village in Peru can identify Arnold Schwarzenegger. Country singer Garth Brooks has devoted fans on the tiny island of Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Yet however mighty a cultural superpower America may be, some Americans fear that immi- grants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation's assimilative power. Intellectuals of various stripes increasingly embrace this notion, some as a validation of their own anti-Americanism, others in horror over the possible collapse of the nation's common culture. Calling assimilation "America's Dirty Little Secret," scholar Richard Alba contends that it has been replaced by the slogans of multiculturalism.' Right-wing nativists question the ability and willingness of today's immigrants to become part and parcel of the nation's social fabric. Left- wing academic multiculturalists argue that, Most immigrant families today do what unlike those of centuries past, today's immi- grants should not be expected to assimilate into newcomers have always done: slowly, the culture of their host country. Anyone sub- often painfully, but quite assuredly, jected to these debates might easily conclude that assimilation has little future in twenty-first embrace the cultural norms that are part century America. of life in the United States. Fortunately, most immigrants are not affected by these debatesthey do not work in or live around universities or participate in elite café society. Most immigrant families today do what newcomers have always done: slowly, often painfully, but quite assuredly, embrace the cultural norms that are part of life in the United States. THE HISTORICAL RECORD Prejudice and preconception lie behind most commonly heard accusations that contemporary immigrants are not assimilating. A centuries-old tradition of misreading immigrants has accompanied each new wave of newcomers. In the eighteenth century, Benjamin Franklin had misgivings about German clanishness and unwillingness to mix with outsiders. In the mid- nineteenth century, nativists worried that Irish Catholics would not only resist assimilation into a predominately Protestant society, but would also serve as agents for the papacy.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the presumed "racial" foreignness of Eastern and Southern European immigrants, as well as newcomers from East Asia, heightened concerns about their prospects for integrating into American life. Following the then-current rage for "scientific" cultural stereotyping, many considered these immigrants, including Jewish

From Newcomers to New Americans 5 immigrants, intellectually and morally incapable of properly integrating into American life.' With their severe disadvantages of low education and high poverty levels, they seemed destined to become denizens of ethnically segregated communities, part of what we would today Assimilationresidential, cultural, and describe as a "permanent underclass."

sociologicalis not now, and has never Few would dispute that the seed of Germany, Ireland, Japan, China, and the Russian Pale has been, an instant transformation in which gradually been absorbed into the American main- an immigrant suddenly becomes a stream. Racial, educational, and religious differences may have persisted, but the absorp- "full-fledged American" tive capacity of American culture ultimately prevailed, to the honor and benefit of the wider society. ASSIMILATION AND ITS LIMITS Rarely do immigrants immediately discard the language, symbols, and tastes of their countries of birth upon arriving in the United States; often they retain some characteristics and loyalties whether in the form of worship, food, or holidaysfor generations to come.

Assimilationresidential, cultural, and sociologicalis not now, and has never been,an instant transformation in which an immigrant suddenly becomes a "full-fledged American." Rather, it is a long-term, sometimes multi-generational, process that to some extent is never-ending.

Almost all Americans carry some of their ethnic past with them. Yet few wouldargue that a third-generation Italian-American cheering for a Milan-based soccer team, a Japanese-American sansei learning about tea ceremonies, or a descendant of a turn-of-the-century Jewish American celebrating Hanukkah rather than Christmas exhibits a deep-seated desire to undermine the essential unity of American culture or society.

Viewed through the prism of history, contemporary arguments about today's immigrants and their assimilative patterns are a motley blend of traditional assertions and misconceptions. As has been the case for much of the past century, the most disturbing complaint centersupon race. British-born journalist Peter Brimelow argues that because a majority of contemporary immigrants are not white, they can never assimilate into what is at its corea "white country.'" Perennial U.S. presidential contender Pat Buchanan openly expresses his concern thatnewcom- ers are responsible for a "dilution" of this country's European heritage." THE ROLE OF ETHNIC ENCLAVES The more common complaint, however, focuses on the tendency of many immigrants tocongre- gate with each other after arriving in the United States. As in earlier centuries, the volume of

* Nearly one-half of post-1960 immigrants are classified as Hispanic in the 1997 Current Population Survey and one-fourth are of Asian origin.

6 From Newcomers to New Americans new immigration has given rise to sizable ethnic enclaves in several American cities. Immigrant havens such as Los Angeles, New York, Houston, San Francisco, Miami, and Washington, D.C., are dotted with "Little Indias," "Little Havanas," and "Little Manilas." Dominicans have carved out a niche in Washington Heights in Manhattan. Salvadorans cluster in Washington, D.C.'s Adams Morgan district. Los Angeles and New York each have their unique versions of "Koreatown." Larger groups such as the Vietnamese and Chinese have left their imprint not only on neighbor- hoods, but on entire suburban citiesfor example, Westminster in Orange County, California, and Monterey Park in Los Angeles County.

This phenomenon is nothing new. Throughout this country's history, immigrant communities have always clustered in specific cities and states. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, immigrants and their children composed absolute majorities of the country's urban population.' Immigrants from Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Germany once created ethnic- specific enclaves in the Midwest. Polish immigrants transformed Chicago into the second-largest Polish city in the world. Italian and Irish immigrants clustered heavily in the Northeastern corridor. Jewish immigrants were once overwhelmingly located in New York. Japanese clustered in Los Angeles and Honolulu.

Today, as in the past, some immigration alarmists see the seeds of secessionist movements within immigrant enclaves. Yet judging from the historical evidence, the tendency of immi- grants to live together in ethnic neighborhoods does not in any way signal active resistance to, or resentment of, mainstream U.S. culture.

To be sure, these communities do seem "exotic" to many native Americans, with stores embla- Judging from the historical evidence, the zoned with strange words, restaurants serving tendency of immigrants to live together in unfamiliar foods, and clubs playing different kinds of music. Yet these sights, smells, and ethnic neighborhoods does not in any sounds do not reflect a conscious rejection of American culture and society. The immigrant way signal active resistance to, or resent- enclaves of today, like the enclaves of the past, ment of, mainstream U.S. culture. simply serve as way-stations for the first genera- tion of newcomers. They are necessary for people who often do not speak English as a first language and need the comfort of familiar people, sounds,and institutions. In this sense, enclaves serve to ease the newcomers' transition and, more importantly, that of their children, as they struggle to gain a foothold in their new country. FOCUSING ON THE IMMIGRANTS The process by which the U.S. shapes and changes the lives of immigrants has received far too little attention. To date, the vast majority of contemporary research on immigration focuses on how newcomers affect the U.S., particularly in economic terms. Yet immigrants do not live as financial aggregates or in economic models; they are human beings trying to adjust to often radically different conditions in a new country.

1 0 From Newcomers to New Americans 7 Even for the best-prepared newcomer, immigration can be a very traumatic process. The strug- gles of resettlement in a foreign land can subject an individual or a family to tremendousstress. Uprooting oneself or one's family from a familiar surrounding filled with extended family, friends, and social networks can be disruptive and alienating. As author Oscar Hand linonce wrote, "the history of immigration is the history of alienation and its consequences."6

These impacts can be felt in the most intimate and personal of ways. What were once customary modes of behavior are no longer adequate in the new environment. Immigrants are forced to forge new relationships and to find new meaning in their lives, often under harsh economic circumstances. An individual's culture is often erroneously From this perspective, it is easier to understand viewed as a fixed quantity. An immigrant why many immigrantspast and presenthave may continue to speak with friends or listen chosen to live in familiar ethnic enclaves. These communities help immigrants adapt to their new to the radio in his native language, but this country by mitigating the cultural impact and providing crucial new networks of jobs and does not prevent him from simultaneously information. The enclaves simply represent a acquiring English. logical intervening step toward the ultimate goal of integrating into American life. THE PATH TO ASSIMILATION For most immigrant groups, and the vast majority of immigrant families, self-segregation weakens with time and with each succeeding generation. Economic progress helps to speedup this process. Today's Asian and Latino immigrants tend to move into more mainstream, inte- grated neighborhoods as they move up the economic ladder. As immigrants and their children come to afford better housing, they choose neighborhoods with more amenities over areas with neighbors of the same ethnicity!

Eventually, we begin to see the ultimate in assimilation: intermarriage. Today most of the children and grandchildren of first generation Greek, Polish, and Slovakian newcomers,groups once considered "unassimilable," have intermarried with members of different immigrant groupsso much so that most of their descendents are themselves amalgams of at least two or three ethnic strains. That phenomenon is being repeated by today's Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their descendents. THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE Even before full-scale assimilation occurs, the presence of self-contained immigrant communities does not keep these groups from gradually integrating into the larger society. An individual's culture is often erroneously viewed as a fixed quantity. An immigrant may continue to speak with friends or listen to the radio in his native language, but this does not prevent him from simultaneously acquiring English in order to communicate with people outside his immediate community. 11 8 From Newcomers to New Americans One clear case of misunderstanding revolves around the use of Spanish by the growing population of Latin-American immigrants. Their continued use of Spanish has been widely mis- interpreted by a wide range of activistsfrom contemporary immigration reform advocates to overzealous marketers and ethnic ideologuesas a refusal to learn, or a rejection of, English.

The dramatic rise of Spanish-language media does not negate the assimilation process, but sim- ply reflects the current high levels of immigration from Latin America. The growth of Spanish music and talk-radio stations is, in a sense, simply an extension of the traditional ethnic enclave into what mass-media expert Marshall McLuhan called "acoustic space;" it does not suggest the creation of a separate, permanent Spanish-speaking counter-culture in America.8

In reality, today's Latin-American immigrants are simply following the traditional pattern of lin- guistic assimilation. The immigrant generation learns enough English to get by, but continues speaking the native language at home. Over time, the first generation's loyalty to the mother tongue gives way to an overwhelming preference for English among their children. The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual, yet thoroughly English proficient. By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majority of immigrant families, and English becomes the mother tongue for subsequent generations. THE IMMIGRANT IMPACT ON MAINSTREAM SOCIETy Assimilation does not mean that Latin-American and other newcomers do not influence American society. Assimilation is not a one-way process; U.S. culture is constantly changing and adapting to immigrants, just as immigrants adapt to it. We see this in parts of the country where the cultures of particular ethnic groups have become part of the local tradition. The bratwurst served at County Stadium in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as well as the presence of a large beer industry in that city, reflects Milwaukee's long history of German immigration.

Similarly, the mainstream society in the Southwest has adopted many Mexican features, both in its names of places and in its food. Local cuisines in California and Texas, for example, are derivative of Mexican influence. The impact of Jewish immigrants in New York is palpable throughout the citynot only in its cuisine, but Assimilation is not a one-way process; also in the cadence of its language and the U.S. culture is constantly changing and extensive use of Yiddishisms by many New Yorkers, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Similarly, adapting to immigrants, just as immigrants no city in America celebrates St. Patrick's Day as fervently as the deeply Irish-influenced Boston, adapt to it. where Italian, Jewish, and non-white Bostonians also celebrate the holiday with zeal.

In future generations, the process that turns Boston green will also color the cultural identity of other cities. Nowhere is this process clearer than in Miami, once an Anglo retirement haven, now a city with a distinctly Cuban-American edge. Los Angeles seems destined to become-

12 From Newcomers to New Americans 9 culturally and politically, as well as demographicallya largely Mexican-American city. San Francisco takes on an ever more obvious Asian, predominately Chinese, character. THE AMERICAN COMMONS Although large concentrations of certain ethnic groups will give these and other cities new cultural, linguistic, aesthetic, and even phenotypic traits, they will all remain quintessentially American cities. Assimilation does not mean, and has never meant, conformity to a fixed, homogeneous American culture. The nation remains, in the words of sociologist Nathan Glazer, "the permanently unfinished country."' American assimilation has taken place not

in the lecture halls or in Congress, but on What is needed most today is a new understanding of assimilation. Advocateswhether cultural the streets, in the factories, and the social nationalists or nativistsfrequently prescribe how immigrants should or should not adapt to the United halls; it is fundamentally protean, ever- States. However, history shows that immigrants adjusting, and profoundly ad hoc. rarely have assimilated in the ways prescribed by intellectuals or politicians. Attempts to coerce them into following particular patternsor to convince them to reject perceived coercionhave often failed. American assimilation has taken place not in the lecture halls or in Congress, but on the streets, in the factories, and the social halls; it is fundamentally protean, ever-adjusting, and profoundly ad hoc.

Immigrants come to America to improve life for themselves and for their families. As they benefit from this country's political and economic opportunities, they typically want their families to adoptcom- monly shared customs, attitudes, speech, and ideals that promote their further well-being within the United States.

Nevertheless, immigration to the U.S. does not require the obliteration of ethnic identity, as hoped for by nativists. It simply means that there are basic conceptsequality under the law, dueprocess, economic opportunitythat people of differing backgrounds adopt. These commonalities, and not the total "melting down" of ethnic identities, are why the nation has been able to absorb more than sixty million immigrants since 1820 without dissolving into a federation of ethnic fiefdoms."

Despite the many attempts to link "Americanness" to a single racial, religious, or ethnicgroup, America's promise lies in its liberation from Old World notions commingling political and ethnic identities. The United States is not a single-race enclave; it is a vast commons shared by a multitude of peoples. As Walt Whitman wrote in 1855, "America is the race of races.. ""

13 10 From Newcomers to New Americans Rootedness

If immigration is the story of uprooting oneself from one's country of origin, then assimilation is the story of putting down roots in one's country of choice. "Assimilation" refers to a variety of adjustments that newcomers make to their new environ- ment. In 1930, pioneering sociologist Robert E. Park wrote that social assimilation is "the name given to the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial origins and different cul- tural heritages, occupying a common territory, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain a national existence.""

In other words, assimilation is about people of dif- Whereas immigration itself can be reactivea ferent racial, religious, or cultural backgrounds not becoming homogenous, but coming to believe that response to pressures in the home country they are part of a larger family of Americans. To become a part of that larger family, a person or becoming a citizen is quintessentially group must develop the sense that one's personal proactive. Not surprisingly, studies have fortune is inextricably intertwined with the for- tunes of the nation as a whole. It is this sense of shown that naturalized citizens tend to have a interdependence that ties us together as a single nation. positive outlook on the United States. Once naturalized, immigrants also take on a more In this report, we identify four quantifiable indices of immigrant rootednesscitizenship, homeown- active role in the civic life of the country ership, language acquisition, and intermarriage. Using these criteria, we can gauge to what extent contemporary immigrants are actively assimilating into U.S. society. We rely primarily on data from the 1990 census, because that gives us the most complete picture of the rootedness of indi- vidual immigrant groups. In comparing differences in intermarriage rates between generations, we use data from the 1994 Current Population Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, because the 1990 census does not contain that information.* In the section introducing each index, we refer to other sources of data both to draw comparisons to immigrants of the past and to update the information gathered in the 1990 census. The 1990 census data on these four indices of assimilation are unequivocal evidence that today's immigrants do in fact assimilate into U.S. life. CITIZENSHIP BACKGROUNDACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP yESTERDAy AND TODAY The most symbolic sign of immigrant rootedness is becoming a United States citizen. Citizenship applicants must declare their intention to reside permanently in this country. The requirements for naturalization involve a minimum of five years residence in the U.S., renuncia- tion of previous national loyalties, basic knowledge of United States history and government and the English language, and consent to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.'

A more detailed discussion of the data can be found at the end of this report. 14 From Newcomers to New Americans Immigrants Today Where They Come From and Where They Live in theU.S.

In 1998, there were more than 26,281,000 foreign-born Immigrants As a Percent of State Populations persons in the United States, representing 9.8% of the total U.S. population. Of these immigrants, 67.2% had arrived in the U.S. before 1990, with almost a third (32.8%) settling between 1990 and 1998. Mexico was the number one country of origin in 1998: just over one in four (27.1%) immigrants residing in the U.S. were of Mexican origin. The Philippines (4.6%) was the second most common country of origin, and China (3.9%) including Hong Kongwas third. Vietnam (3.8%), Cuba Source: 1998 Current Population Survey (3.5%), and the former Soviet Union (2.8%) were the Under 5% 5.1-10% El 10.1-15% fourth, fifth, and sixth most common countries of origin. 15.1-20% Over 20%

Just as in past immigration, today's foreign-born popula- tion is not distributed equally throughout the country. Nearly one-third (30.3%) of all immigrants reside in Immigrants in 1998 Top 15 Countries of Origin California. Altogether, six states are home to 70.7% of the nation's immigrant population: California, New York (13.8%), Florida (8.8%), Texas (8.8%), Illinois (4.5%), and Italy 1.8% Haiti 1.8% New Jersey (4.50/0). Twenty-eight states of the Union Germany 2.1% Rest OtmOrici 33.8% have experienced relatively insignificant immigration, with Korea 2.2% Canada 2.3% immigrants making up less than 5% of their populations. United Kingdom 2.4% Dominican Republic 2.4% India 2.7% A disproportionate number of immigrants are concen- El Salvador 2.8% trated in the nation's two largest metropolitan areas: Los Former USSR 2.8% Angeles (18.2%) and the New York metropolitan area Cuba 3.5% Vietnam 3.8% (which includes parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, China 3.9% Philippines 4.6% 17.6%). More than one-third of the nation's immigrants Source: 1998 Current Population Survey

12 From Newcomers to New Americans 15 are clustered in these two urban regions. Miami-Fort Percentage Foreign-Born Lauderdale (5.4%), the San Francisco Bay area (5.3%), Metropolitan Areas 100 As of 1998 and the Chicago metropolitan area (4.3%) are the third, fourth, and fifth largest immigrant concentrations in the 80 country. The top five most heavily foreign-born urban areas of the country account for half (50.8%) of the 60 U nation's immigrants. al 4038.9

29.7 23.021 Percentage-wise, Miami-Fort Lauderdale (38.9%) is 20 2 15.7 more heavily populated by immigrants than any other ga 11.010ii metropolitan area in the country. At 2.2% and 4.2% of 0I11111111111110716111.6161-uu cio Acp s2. Az5 xcp NneKet0,<<";,,,,SVP0:,cp'Cr:K.bc,6 V-0°' their populations, respectively, Cincinnati and Cleveland \5,c' -c,4` cD44*Y Pcs have the lowest percentage of foreign-born residents Metropolitan Areas of any major metropolitan region in the country. Source: 1998 Current Population Survey

Fast Facts: Immigrants Arriving Between 1880-1890 Immigration now and immigration 100 years ago: Top 15 Countries of Origin In 1998, immigrants were 9.8% of the population of

Rest of World 4 3% the United States. Netherlands 7% Portugal 7% alIn 1900, immigrants were 13.6% of our population. Turkey 8% France .8%` Switzerland .8% Denmark 1.4% In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants Austria-Hungary Norway 2.6% 16.1% arrived for every 1,000 U.S. residents. Poland 2.6% La In the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 immigrants arrived for every 1,000 U.S. residents.14

Source: The 1996 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

16 From Newcomers to New Americans 13 Whereas immigration itself can be reactivea response to pres- sures in the home countrybecoming a citizen is quintessentially proactive. Not surprisingly, studies have shown that naturalized citizens tend to have a positive outlook on the United States. Once naturalized, immigrants also take on a more active role in the civic life of the country.'

Macarena Tamayo-Calabrese Citizenship is not a step that all immigrants take. Many Americans Chicago, Illinois assume, for example, that all immigrants at the turn of the century became naturalized en masse when they arrived in the U.S. But the Macarena Tamayo-Calabrese and her truth is that only about half of all immigrants have availed them- siblings came to the U.S. from Quito, Equador in 1973 to join their parents who selves of citizenship for most of America's history. At the turn of were already living here. Her fascination the century, about half of all immigrants were naturalized; in 1990, with the American system of govern- 40% of immigrants were naturalized.16 ment inspired her to become an attorney. Naturalization rates have always varied widely by group and region Tamayo-Calabrese says that immi- grants participate in every facet of of origin. The overwhelming majority of Irish, German, and Jewish American life and can be found in immigrants became citizens. But Italians and Eastern European every type of employment. But attain- immigrants were far less likely to naturalize. ing citizenship has a special meaning for them. "For immigrants like me, becoming a citizen is final confirmation Sociologists have theorized that social class, education, and the rela- that we are an intricate part of the tive distance and political conditions of the country of origin are all American fabric," she says. critical factors in determining naturalization rates. Jewish immigrants, for example, had no country or safe haven to return to when they left Eastern Europe; Italians, Greeks, Poles, and others often planned from the beginning to return home.

Today, changing political conditions in the United States are also effecting a change in attitudes toward Immigrant Naturalization By year of Entry naturalization. The anti-immigrant campaigns in As of 1990 California and in Congress in the last five years have 100 90.2 been partly responsible for inspiring the greatest rush to 80 naturalization in the history of the United States." The 1990 data in this report will not reflect it, but immigrant 60 naturalization ratesparticularly for Mexicansare 40 rising, suggesting an even greater willingness among this large immigrant group to put down roots. In 1996, there 20 was a 212.3% increase in Mexican immigrant naturaliza- 0 tions over the previous year. Accounting for 24.4% of 1985.1990 1980-1984 197519791970-19741965-1969 1960-1964 1950-1959 Pre-1950 total new citizens, Mexico was the leading country of year of Entry origin for naturalizing immigrants in 1996.18 Universe:Foreign-Born Persons Source:1990 U.S. Census PUMS

1?

14From Newcomers to New Americans FROM THE 1990 CENSUS ImmigrantNaturalization 100 Top15Countriesof Origin In 1990, more than three-quarters (76.4%) of Asof 1990 immigrants who had resided in the U.S. for 90

forty years were naturalized citizens. 8075.9 71 70 The longer immigrants reside in the United States, the 60 59.6 more likely they are to become U.S. citizens. Only 7.5% of 54.353.7 51. immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the late 1980s were 50 46.5 42.340.8 naturalized by 1990.* That number jumps to 23.5% for ao 40.5 34.4 those who arrived in the early 1980s and to 40.8% for a 8 30 2726.3 22.6 o. those who came in the late 1970s. Immigrants who had 20 15.8 resided in the U.S. for twenty to twenty-five years were more than seven times more likely to be citizens than 10

I- I I I , were recent arrivals. Immigrants who had resided in the ,st 4,5 ee AD cece country for forty years or more were twelve times more .4 4(' Jcb co 0 likely to be citizens than were recent arrivals. Fully 90.2% Countries of immigrants who had been in the U.S. since before the Universe: Foreign-Born Persons Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS 1950s became citizens by 1990.

Salvadoran Immigrant Naturalization In short, with each additional five years of residence in the By year of Entry 100 United States, an immigrant becomes considerably more likely As of 1990 90 to become a citizen. Indeed, among thirteen of the fifteen

80 most populous immigrant groups, the majority of newcomers were naturalized within thirty years of arriving in the U.S. 70 60'- 55.9 In 1990, 40.5% of all immigrants were citizens of the United 50 47.1 States. Of immigrants from the fifteen most common coun- 40 '- 35.1 tries of origin, Italians (75.9%) and Germans (71.7%) were the 30 most likely to be naturalized. Immigrants in these two 20 groups were also the most likely to have been in the U.S. for 10 ' many years. Of the fifteen most populous immigrant 6 0 groups, Salvadorans were the least likely to be naturalized 1985-1990 1980-1984 1975-1979 1970-1974 1965-1969 1960-1964 (15.8%). In 1990, Salvadorans were also one of the groups year of Entry Universe: Foreign-Born Persons Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS who had resided for the least amount of time in the United States. In addition, a large percentage of Salvadorans had temporary status and were not yet permanent legal residents eligible for citizenship. Mexican immi- grants were the second least likely group to be naturalized in 1990.

A look at each group's year of entry to the U.S. reveals a more dynamic picture of the naturaliza- tion process. Even Salvadorans, the group with the lowest overall percentage of naturalized citizens in 1990, show a remarkable increase in naturalization over time. While only 6.5% of Salvadoran immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s were citizens in 1990, 55.9% of those

Immigrants are not eligible for citizenship for at least five yearswith the exception of those married to U.S. citizensand recent immigrants are therefore expected to have low rates of naturalization. Furthermore, census data do not distinguish between documented and undocumented immigrants. Hence, naturalization rates are skewed downward by the inclusion of immigrants who are not eligible for citizenship.

From Newcomers to New Americans 15 18 Chinese Immigrant Naturalization immigrants who arrived between 1960 and 1964 were By year of Entry naturalized by 1990.* As of 1990 100 88.0 91.9 90.4 Mexican immigrants also show a healthy upward increase 83.4 80 77.8 in naturalization over time. While only 8.6% of recent

64.0 arrivals were naturalized by 1990, 61.8% of pre-1950 immi- 60 grants were citizens. Those arriving in the 1950s were five times more likely to be naturalized (47.3%) than were 40 32.4 recent arrivals, and pre-1950 immigrants were seven times 20 more likely to be citizens than recent arrivals. Filipino, 5.0 I. Korean, Chinese, and Indian immigrants, and those from 0 1 1985-1990 1980-198 1975-19791970-1974 1965-1969 1960-1964 1950-1959Pre-1950 the former Soviet Union, all tend to naturalize quickly and year of Entry at high rates. Most Vietnamese immigrants have resided Universe:Foreign-Born Persons Source:1990 U.S. Census PUMS in the U.S. for fewer years than the above-mentioned groups, but they, too, tend to naturalize quickly. While only 11% of recent Filipino immigrants were naturalized by 1990, 83% of those who arrived in the early 1970s were citizens. Likewise, 82.2% of early 1970s Korean immigrants were naturalized by 1990, and 79.4% of early Filipino Immigrant Naturalization By year of Entry 1970s Vietnamese immigrants had become citizens by 1990. As of 1990 100 90.9 86.9 88.5 83.0 84.9 80 HOMEOWNERSHIP 72.7

BACKGROUNDBUyING A PIECE OF THE 60 AMERICAN DREAM 43.7 40 Perhaps the most durable indicator of attachment to U.S. life

is homeownership. For most Americansnative or foreign 20 11.0 bornbuying a house is the principal means of accumulating 0 wealth. For the vast majority of families, there is no greater 1985-1990 19801984 197519791970-19741965-1969 1960-1964 19501959 Pre-1950 symbol of stability, permanence, and faith in the future. year of Entry Universe:Foreign-Born Persons Source:1990 U.S. Census PUMS If we look at data from the 1996 Past studies and this report show unequivocally that the longer an immigrant remains in this coun- Current Population Survey, foreign-born try, the more likely he or she is to purchase a home. persons who had arrived in the U.S. Overall, native-born Americans have a considerably higher homeownership rate than immigrants, but a before 1970 had a homeownership longitudinal look reveals that foreign-born persons who have been in the U.S. for at least twenty-five rate of 75.6%, compared to the years actually achieve a higher homeownership native-born rate of 69.8%. rate than the U.S. born.t If we look at data from the 1996 Current Population Survey, foreign-born

* In this report, we consider only periods of entry in which 5,000 or more immigrants arrived in the United States For example, very few Salvadoran immigrants came to the U.S. prior to 1960. Therefore, those years are not considered.

t Overall, more than two-thirds of native-born persons live in owner-occupied housing units, compared to less than half of the foreign-born. 19 16 From Newcomers to New Americans persons who had arrived in the U.S. before 1970 had a homeownership rate of 75.6%, compared to the native-born rate of 69.8%."

Demographically, contemporary immigrants are much more like the native population than was the case historically. Whereas immigrants before 1920 were predominately male and single, today's immigrants more closely resemble the U.S. population with regard to age, sex, and marital status.x In particular, contemporary immigrants' Ben Monterroso high rates of marriage presumably contribute to their propensity to Los Angeles, California buy homes. BenMonterroso emigrated to the U.S. in 1977 from Guatemala. He became a FROM THE 1990 CENSUS U.S. citizen in 1995. He and his wife, Within twenty years of arrival in the U.S., well over half an immigrant from El Salvador, have three children. (60.9%) of immigrants lived in owner-occupied housing. Monterroso bought his first home in While a little less than one-quarter (24.3%) of immigrants who had 1985 and now owns a second one. He arrived in the late 1980s owned homes in 1990, 80.1% of 1950s says that buying a home was an accomplishment for him and his fam- immigrants resided in owner-occupied housing. Immigrants who ily because their future is here in had lived in the U.S. for twenty-six to thirty years were three times America. He wanted his children to more likely to own a home than were recent arrivals. Among have something that they could call thirteen of the fifteen most populous immigrant groups, at least their own. Now that I have a home, I can say that my family owns a little piece two-thirds of families lived in owner-occupied homes after twenty- of America," Monterroso says. six years of residence in the U.S.*

Overall, a respectable 50.4% of all immigrant homes were Immigrant Homeownership owner-occupied in 1990. Of the fifteen most populous By year of Entry As of 1990 immigrant groups, Italians (81.9%) and Germans (75.5%) 'di 100 a) were the most likely to own homes in 1990. Immigrants 80.1 80 75.4 from the Dominican Republic were the least likely to own 72.5 67.0 homes. The fact that Dominicans were highly concen- 60.9 ug. 60 U 52.9 trated in renter-dominated New York City may have 9 contributed to this lower rate. 40 38.0

O 24.3 S 42, 20 Of the fifteen most populous immigrant groups, Italians a) (87.1%), Indianst (85.2%), and Filipinos (85%) made the 0198519901980-19841975-197919701974 1965-1969 1960-1964 1950-1959 Pre-1950 greatest strides toward homeownership after twenty-six year of Entry to thirty years of residence in the U.S. Even the immi- Universe: Foreign-Born Persons in Households Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS grant group least likely to own their own homes in 1990 (the Dominicans) experienced a gradual increase in homeownership. While their homeownership rate was still not high (41.3%), Dominicans who arrived in the 1950s were four times more likely to be homeowners than were recent arrivals.

The decline in homeownership for pre-1950 immigrants is most likely due to age-related frailties, retirement, and alternative housing arrangements. Homeownership for all householders tends to drop at about age 70.

t In this report, we consider only periods of entry in which 5,000 or more immigrants arrived in the United States.

r) 4. From Newcomers to New Americans 17 Given their Indian Immigrant Homeownership Immigrant Homeownership By year of Entry typically low Top 15 Countries of Origin 100 As of 1990 0 As of 1990 socioeconomic CU100 0 V) status upon 81.9 O 84.7 86.5 85.2 8? 80 75.5 80 entering the 0 a2 U.S., Mexican 61.1 58.7 60 57.1 u 60 immigrants 9 attain home- 40 40 32.9 0 ownership at a 0 20 remarkable 20 rate over time.

;15 0 a. 1985-1990 19841984 1975-1979 970-1974 1965-1969 1960-196 Only 17.5% of 0 \\O year of Entry Mexicans who escs 66 ,o ,,c4 4 coiz$ ,se AP C* Universe: Foreign-Born Persons in Households c3r Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS had arrived in the late 1980s Countries Mexican Immigrant Homeownership lived in owner- Universe: Foreign-Born Persons in Households By year of Entry occupied units Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS As of 1990 100 in 1990, but 90 that percentage more than doubled to 39.2% among those 80 who had arrived in the late 1970s. After twenty-six to thirty 70 65.7 years of residence in the U.S., Mexican immigrants were 59.8 60 52.4 almost four times more likely to own homes than were 50 recent arrivals. Mexican immigrants who had arrived 39.2 40 during or before the 1950s had very high homeownership 30 rates-73.9% and 76.2%, respectively. 20

10 0 LANGUAGE 1985-19901 80-1984 975-19791970-1974 19651969 1960-1964 1950-1959Pre-1950 year of Entry ACQUISITION Universe: Foreign-Born Persons in Households Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS BACKGROUNDMISCONCEPTIONS AND REALITIES ABOUT LEARNING ENGLISH Commitment to life in the United States can also be seen in the acquisition of English-language proficiency." Learning Englishthe predominant language used in social discourse and in business transactionsenables immigrants to participate in such critical activities as getting an education, finding a job, and obtaining access to social services, as well as applying for citizenship.

The common contention that today's immigrants are more resistant to learning English than past generations is a misconception. At the turn of the century, an estimated 25% of the immigrant population could not speak English.22 By contrast, in 1990, only 8% of all immigrants over the age of five could not speak English at all.

Another common contention, that the proliferation of foreign language media (particularly Spanish-language media) removes incentives to learn English, is not supported by the data. In reality, immigrants who arrive with few English skills tend, over time and with extended expo- sure, to acquire more. This is also true for immigrants from Latin America. Among all recent

18 From Newcomers to New Americans 21 immigrants from non-English speaking countries, 47% said that they did not speak English "well" or "very well" within roughly two years of arrival. Yet among those immigrants who had been here thirty years or more, 88% said they spoke English with high proficiency."

Despite the obvious benefits of cultivating bilingualism within America's diverse population, sociologists have designated the U.S. Dr. Lucien Houenou as a "language graveyard."" In most cases, within a few genera- Winston-Salem, North Carolina tions after immigration the native language is completely lost and Dr. Lucien Houenou came to the U.S. in replaced by English. 1988 to conduct medical research at Wake Forest University. He had previ- ously fled civil strife in his native Benin, FROM THE 1990CENSUS West Africa, and moved to France where Within ten years of arrival, more than three-quarters he received his Ph.D. in biology. (76.3%) of immigrants spoke English with high Although he spoke five languages, proficiency. Houenou knew no English. Because he worked 16 hours a day in the lab, Houenou did not have time for English In 1990, a majority (58.2%) of immigrants who had arrived in the classes. So, he bought a television and previous five years already reported speaking English "well" or learned English by watching cartoons. "very well." Of those who had been in the U.S. since the late 1960s, He has learned well. Houenou is now 80.5% spoke English "well" or "very well" as of 1990. Of those who an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology arrived before 1950, 92% spoke English "well" or "very well." and Anatomy at the School of Medicine at Wake Forest University and is work- Not surprisingly, immigrants from English-speaking countries ing to find a cure to Lou Gehrig's disease and Muscular Dystrophy. Says Canada and the United Kingdomreported speaking English better Houenou, "America provides me with than immigrants from the other fifteen most common countries of such incredible opportunities and I hope origin. Filipino, Indian, and German immigrantscoming from that in some small way, I will be able to countries where English is either a semi-official language or a com- give something back." monly taught second languagealso tend to speak English proficiently upon, or soon after, arrival.

ImmigrantAbilityto SpeakEnglish Of immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, "Well"or "VeryWell" those from the former Soviet Union, Korea, and Vietnam By year ofEntry 100 As of 1990 92.0 tend to gain English proficiency most quickly. By 1990, 89 3 84 7 80.5 94.8% of Koreans who had arrived between 1965 and 80 76.3 77.8 70.3 1969 spoke English proficiently, while 92.1% of 6058.2 Vietnamese who had arrived in the early 1970s spoke 5, English "well" or "very well." Of immigrants from the 40 03 former Soviet Union who had arrived in the early ta. 20 1970s, 84.5% spoke English "well" or "very well" by 1990. 0 1985-1990 1980.1984 1975-19791970-19741965-1969 1960-1964 1950-1959 Pre-195 year of Entry A majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most

Universe:Foreign -Born Persons 5 YearsOld and Older common countries of origin spoke English "well" or Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS "very well" after ten years of residence in the U.S. Only

From Newcomers to New Americans 19 4% of immigrants who had resided in the U.S. for twenty-six Percentage of Immigrants Who Speak No English to thirty years spoke no English at all, while a paltry 1.7% of By year of Entry long-established, forty-year-plus immigrants reported speak- 100 As of 1990 ing no English at all. 80

a) a) The idea that non-English-speaking clusters remain over 60 generations is simply untrue. Virtually all children of immi- a)

0) 40 grants spoke English proficiently. Of second-generation O. Asian Americans 20-16.5 aged five to seven- 9.1 6.7 English Ability of 6.5 5.7 4.0 , _2.2 1.7 teen, 93.9% 0 .1 hi Asian-American Children 1985-19901980-19841975-19791970-19741965-1969 1960-19641950-1959 Pre-1950 reported speaking By Generation year of Entry 1990 English "well," Universe: Foreign-Born Persons 5 Years Old and Older Language 1st 2nd 3rd Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS "very well," or Spoken at GenerationGenerationGeneration Home exclusively. Only English 10.67% 49.56% 85.30% Nearly half (49.6%) spoke only English. By the third genera- Non-English tion, fully 85.3% of young Asian Americans spoke only Language at Home & Speaks English English, and 98.3% reported speaking English "well," "very Very Well 44.88% 33.25% 9.72% well," or exclusively. Well 26.28% 11.06% 3.30% Not Well 16.04% 5.67% 1.52% The same pattern Not at All 2.14% 0.47% 0.16% Vietnamese Immigrants: Ability to Speak English could be seen Universe: All children 5-17 years old living in two-parent households with "Well" or "Very Well" at least 1 parent of Asian descent. By year of Entry among Latino Source: 1990 Census PUMS 100 As of 1990 92.1 youngsters resid- 81.1 80 ing in the United States. Although their households were 70.8 much more likely to be bilingual than those of second-gener- 60 C ation Asian Americans, 91.7% of second-generation Hispanic 44.2 children five to seventeen years old reported speaking o. 404 English "well," 20 "very well," or exclusively. By the English Ability of 0 Hispanic-American Children 1985-1990 1980-1984 1975-1979 1970-1974 third generation, By Generation year of Entry Spanish was much 1990 Universe: Foreign-Born Persons 5 Years Old and Older less likely to be Language 1st 2nd 3rd Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS Spoken at GenerationGenerationGeneration spoken at home. Home Roughly two-thirds (65.7%) of third-generation Latino children Only English 2.93% 16.00% 65.74% spoke English exclusively, and 95.7% spoke English "well," Non-English Language at Home "very well," or exclusively. There is evidence that Spanish is & Speaks English resilient and persists as a second language among Latinos in Very Well 44.23% 55.07% 22.24% heavily Hispanic regions of the country, but this clearly does Well 27.55% 20.60% 7.68% Not Well 17.72% 7.32% 3.99% not retard the thorough acquisition of the nation's primary Not at All 7.57% 1.01% 0.35% language. Universe: All children 5-17 years old living in two-parent households with at least 1 parent of Hispanic descent. Source: 1990 Census PUMS

23 20From Newcomers to New Americans INTERMARRIAGE

BACKGROUNDTRANSCENDING ETHNIC SEPARATENESS Finally, there is the factor of intermarriage.* Americanization does not require the obliteration of ethnic identity, but it has long depended on the intermingling of peoples from a variety of backgrounds. Intermarried couples and their children are living testaments to the fundamen- Intermarriage is not only a sign that a tal tolerance underpinning a multi-ethnic society. person has transcended the ethnic self- Intermarriage is not only a sign that a person has transcended the ethnic self-segregation of the segregation of the first years of immigration, first years of immigration, it is also the most it is also the most potent example of how potent example of how Americans forge a common national experience out of a diverse Americans forge a common national cultural past. As Richard Alba wrote: "A high rate of intermarriage signals that individuals of experience out of a diverse cultural past putatively different ethnic backgrounds no longer perceive social and cultural differences significant enough to create a barrier to a long-term union. In this sense, intermarriage could be said to test the salience, and even the existence of a social boundary between ethnic categories.""

Put another way, intermarriage illustrates the extent to which ethnicity no longer serves to separate one American from another. It is the most basic way in which the nation achieves the multidimensional racial destiny predicted by Whitman. It is human testimony to the reality of E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One.

FROM THE 1990 CENSUS AND THE 1994 CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY Intermarriage rates for second- and third-generation Asians and Latinos are extraordinarily high.

In most cases, intermarriage is significantly more common among the children and grandchildren Intermarriage By Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity of immigrants than it is among the immigrant As of 1990 generation. Foreign-born Hispanics and Asians 50 FBForeign Born UsU.S. Born are significantly less likely to intermarry than are 40 their U.S.-born counterparts. However, foreign- al 29.2 born whites and blacks are somewhat more likely ea 3 c 26.3 to intermarry than their U.S.-born counterparts. a) 20

In 1990, 29.2% of married U.S.-born Asian males 10 8.4 6.6 5.8 6.8 had non-Asian spouses, and 26.3% of U.S.-born 4.2 2.6

Hispanic males were married to non-Hispanics. FB US FB US FB US FB US U.S.-born Asian males are four times more likely White Black Asian Hispanic to intermarry than are foreign-born Asians. Universe: Married Males Source: 1990 U.S. Census PUMS

* For a definition of intermarriage, see note on methodology at the end of this report.

24 From Newcomers to New Americans 21 U.S.-born Hispanic Intermarriage by Generation males are three By Race/Ethnicity times more likely to As of 1994 50 1st Generation intermarry than are 2nd Generation immigrant 41.5 3rd Generation 40

Hispanics. 33.2

29.2 F1,2 30 The 1994 Current a Population Survey 20 18.6 Bilal Omarjee and allows us to look at Bethzabet Chavez-Omarjee 10 8.1

4.5 Ft. Hood, Texas the third genera- 3.1 3.3 tionnative-born 1.1 ao White Black Asian Hispanic Bilal, born in South Africa, and children of native- Bethzabet, a Hispanic American, were Universe:Married FemalesSource: June, 1994 Current Population Survey married on March 4, 1999. Beth is a born parentsof 2nd Lieutenant in the Army and Bilal the four major racial will soon be commissioned as an or ethnic groups. A relatively high percentage (18.6%) of first-gen- officer in the Army Reserves. eration married Asian immigrant women had intermarried, 29.2% Bilal, whose family moved to the United of second-generation Asian women had done so, and a phenome- States in 1989 when he was 16, says that nal 41.5% of third-generation married Asian women had non-Asian this country has allowed him to fulfill spouses. many of his dreams, including service in the military. Bilal and his wife are united not only in marriage, but also in their Similarly, the rates of Latino intermarriage increase tremendously dedication to serve their country. He over generations. In 1994, only 8.4% of first-generation women had says, "For this country, both Beth and I are intermarried, compared to 26.4% of second-generation Hispanic prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice." women. One-third (33.2%) of third-generation Hispanic women had non-Hispanic spouses.

CONCLUSION By all available evidence, today's immigrants assimilate into U.S. life much like earlier waves of newcomers did. The proof exists not in the rhetoric of the heated battles over immigration, but in the data revealing the often overlooked, everyday lives of contemporary immigrants and their families.

Over the past few years, the debate over immigration has been dominated by extremist activists. Fully assimilated U.S.-born ethnic ideologues have assumed the role of spokespeople for mil- lions of immigrants. Ironically, they often insist that newcomers should not embrace the very U.S. culture that they themselves have absorbed. On the other extreme, anti-immigrant activists, like generations of nativists before them, have espoused the mantra that contemporary immigrants are somehow fundamentally and behaviorally distinct from yesterday's newcomers. Yet even as the activists argue in the public eye, millions of contemporary immigrants quietly, steadily, and decisively assimilate into U.S. life.

25 22 From Newcomers to New Americans A NOTE ON METHODOLOGy In assessing the four quantifiable indices of assimilation, we have chosen to rely on the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) rather than the 1998 Current Population Survey (CPS). Although conducted nine years ago, the decennial census is still the most reliable source of data on these indices. The overall raw numbers of immigrants have changed, but the basic characteristics of population groups and their fundamental behaviors have likely remained constant. Furthermore, the 1990 census was based on a huge sample with many immigrant respondents. The CPS, by contrast, used a much smaller sample. The more extensive 1990 sample allows us to extract data on individual immigrant groups with much greater confidence. In the case of English-language ability, we are obliged to use the 1990 census because the CPS did not collect data on that variable.

For intermarriage data, we rely on both the 1990 census PUMS and the June 1994 Current Population Survey. We use the 1994 CPS because it tracks generational differences, while the decennial census does not. In using the 1994 CPS, we do not extract data for individual coun- tries because the sample size is too small to ensure accuracy. Instead, we break down the data into the four major racial or ethnic groups: White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic. Indeed, in this report we define intermarriage strictly as marriage in which a member of one of the four major groups crosses ethnic lines to marry someone from one of the other three groups. Finally, the June 1994 CPS collected data on intermarriage only for women.

For the most recent numbers of immigrants and where they reside in the United States, we rely exclusively on the 1998 CPS.

26

From Newcomers to New Americans 23 Endnotes

1Richard D. Alba, "Assimilation's Quiet Tide," The Public Interest (spring 1995). 2Paul R. Ehrlich, Loy Bilderback, and Anne C. Ehrlich, The Golden Door (1979). 3Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster (1995). 4 Deborah Sontag, "Calls to Restrict Immigration Come from Many Quarters," The New York Times, 13 December 1992.

5Alejandro Pones and Ruben G. Rumbaut, Immigrant America: A Portrait, 2nd ed. (1996). 6 Oscar Hand lin, The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People (1959).

7William Frey, "The New Geography of Population Shifts: Ti-ends Toward Balkanization," in State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol. 2, Social Trends, ed. Reynolds Farley (1995). 8Marshall McLuhan and Bruce R. Powers, The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st Century (1992). 9 Leon F. Bouvier and Robert W. Gardner, Immigration to the U.S.: The Unfinished Story (1986). 10 Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1994 (1996). 11 Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass (1855). 12 Robert E. Park, "Social Assimilation," in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, eds. Edwin Seligman and Alvin Johnson (1930). 13 Louis DeSipio, "Making Citizens or Good Citizens? Naturalization as a Predictor of Organizational and Electoral Behavior Among Latino Immigrants," Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences (May 1996). 14 John Miller, ed., Strangers at Our Gate: Immigration in the 1990s (1994). 15 Ricardo R. Alvarez, "A Profile of the Citizenship Process Among Hispanics in the United States," International Migration Review (summer 1987). 16 James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997). 17 Seth Mydans, "The Latest Big Boom: Citizenship," The New York Times, 11 August 1995. 18 Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1996 (1997). 19 Kristin A. Hansen and Carol S. Faber, "The Foreign-Born Population: 1996," Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census (March 1997). 20 Douglas S. Massey, "Dimensions of the New Immigration to the United States and the Prospects for Assimilation," Annual Review of Sociology (1981). 21 Thomas J. Espenshade and Haishan Fu, "An Analysis of English-Language Proficiency among U.S. Immigrants," American Sociological Review (April 1997). 22 Rena Michaels Atchison, "Unamerican Immigration, 1894," in Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints, ed. Teresa O'Neill (1992). 23 Smith and Edmonston, The New Americans. 24 Ruben G. Rumbaut, "Transformations: The Post-Immigrant Generation in an Age of Diversity," unpublished paper, (1998). 25 Alba, 'Assimilation's Quiet Tide." 27 24 From Newcomers to New Americans National-Immigration Forum Publication List A Guide to Immigration Facts and Issues, (Updated May 1999). Our most popular release, these easy-to-read fact sheets and issue briefs on immigration provide a comprehensive overview of the most important immigration issues facing policy-makers today. Cost: $5.00 + shipping

A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest Americans, by Stephen Moore, Cato Institute (July 1998). A ground- breaking publication reviewing the fiscal impact of the 25 million immigrants living in the United States. It incorporates the author's original findings and examines more than two dozen national studies. Cost: $10.00 + shipping New Americans Emerging: The Immigrant Vote in the 1998 Elections and Beyond. A tran- script of the November 12, 1998 panel discussion sponsored by the National Immigration Forum, featuring panelists Dario Moreno, Florida International University; Gregory Rodriguez, Pepperdine University Institute for Public Policy; Lance Tarrance, Burson Marsteller; and Fredrick Yang, Garin-Hart- Yang Research Group. Cost: $5.00 + shipping

A Conservative View of Immigration: Policies, Politics & Elections. This publication features the proceedings of the September 16, 1998 event co-sponsored by the National Immigration Forum and Empower America, featuring keynotes by Jack Kemp, Senator Spencer Abraham, and Congressman Christopher Smith; and a panel discussion with political analysts Michael Barone, Ed Goeas, and Kevin Spillane. Cost: $5.00 + shipping The New Americans Series: A Look at America's Gateway Cities Miami: Cosmopolitan Capital of the Americas, (1998). A 36-page magazine which finds that today's Miami is a growing center of international commerce, a dynamic urban area wrestling with its unique ethnic composition, and the home of a new generation of creative leaders making the most of Miami's multi-ethnic character, fighting for inclusion and forging unity. Cost: $5.00 + shipping Houston: Diversity Works, (1997). A 24-page magazine highlighting the extent of cooperation and community between new immigrants and established residents. It also features immigrants who are making contributions to their neighborhoods and local political and community leaders who create a climate which embraces diversity in Houston. Cost: $5.00 + shipping Finding Common Ground: A Primer for Environment and Population Advocates Concerned about Immigration, (1996). A 16-page pamphlet which discusses environmental and population issues as they relate to immigration and global migration. Cost: $3.00 + shipping Together In Our Differences: How Newcomers and Established Residents are Rebuilding America's Communities, (1995). A 96-page book that highlights examples of innovative efforts that have been successful in bringing newcomers and established residents together to address common concerns and to improve the communities in which they reside. The book also draws conclusions and makes recommendations about what funders, policy-makers, and community leaders can do to support them. Cost: $12.95 + shipping

To order any of these publications, or to receive additional copies of this publication, please contact the National Immigration Forum at 202-544-0004 or visit our website at www.immigrationforum.org.

2 -

National Immigration Forum 220 I Street, NE, Suite 220 Washington, DC 20002-4362 Tel: 202-544-0004 Fax: 202-544-1905 www.immigrationforum.org

ISBN: 0-9645220-2-0$10.00 29 FLcol57

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

Title: II-0 "' IV 92 LA) Co P.'\. -e 0f) t-t)A- A v-e r ;"-C_& 7 1-t t-e S S S f l V14-e ri(-4-1 -0 v\ OF- :CM A-7 t- 5 ct\-e/-

Author(s): c)r- R-0 3 r;.-(3u -e

Corporate Source: Publication Date: h it'"\ /\-) crA:k /\/ 7q

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educationalcommunity, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE),are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is givento the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE ofthe following three options and sign at the bottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 28 documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY \e Sa

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 2A 2B Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B

I I I

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 28 release, permitting and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival and dissemination In microfiche and In electronic media reproduction and dissemination In microfiche only media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy. for ERIC archival collection subscribers only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce anddisseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign Signature: Printed Name/Position/rifts: here,-) M a L.) C-e ( n Organization/Address: Telephone: please 549 -6°64 2 S614 I E-Mail Address: Date: /MAA!3c4teftVerw%, f (over) III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address: 2-2-° -e+) j3 '12-0 WOO-14n DC 2_Oc56?---q3(2- k 00 oci 202.-5-cm-/965 Price: 0 tO 0

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

I Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: NCLE 4646 40th St., NW Washington. D.C. 20016-1859

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to: ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 1100 West Street, 2n° Floor Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598

Telephone: 301-497.4080 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX: 301-953-0263 e-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com

EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97) PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.